Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

it just doesn't make sense....what wrong with reciprocal links?
if Google really don't like this, they can do some tweaking to algro, which is just totally ignored the particular site with reciprocal....no harm to anybody....

It doesn't surprise me that google makes their statements ambiguous. As tyrants throughout the ages have seen; FEAR keeps the masses under control, FEAR of this Search Engine will keep them in line.

Personally, I don't make much from their adsense and have slowly built up a following of users without their "oh, so godlike help" so I don't really care.

I will take them seriously when they start banning Fortune 500 companies for having entire departments devoted to cross linking their multiple sites for the purpose of higher SERP's. But money talks, so I wouldn't look for anybody getting hurt from this but the "little guys" trying to run a site and make a living the "American" way.

Too bad there is not a "Darth Vader" icon I could post beside the Title of this post!

I persoanlly do not believe that Google would be that STUPID!! They just state in their guidelines that link exchange scams are BAD!!

If they ever got too nasty about it, I have a feeling that all of us may be able to do something about that with all of the network power that we have if we put it together!!

Click to expand...

Yes, after all google is all about contents from OUR sites. If we block the Google bot from visiting our site. Google will only be left with few sites.. Will people use Google any more??
Google shouldn't try forcing itself on us webmasters. Because we are there main business
if we quit adsense
if we quit adwords
if we quit search engines.. they will not left with anything
so Google beware
..:: peace ::..
Jeba

I just watched that video and i didnt get the feeling he was saying anything
we already dont know so... follow the guildlines and you should be ok..

I myself cant see anyone being penalized for exchanging links providing that
the "relevance" in which links are exchanged are the same.

When trading links with a site or (page) that has totally irrelevant info and do it
just for PR sake then this can be harmful not only to your sites but also their
search results as common sense would dictate

I am currently looking into the possibility that one of my sites has been penalized for 3 months because of reciprocal links without nofollow, which are all relevant and not at all large in numbers compared to most other sites.

If the links would end up being the reason for the penalization it would mean that like 99% of all websites on the Internet are just waiting to be penalized.

So far, the only times I have seen Google actively penalize a site for link exchanges is if they're using an automated link exchange system on their site with a links directory that includes many unrelated categories of sites. And even then, the impact is usually limited. But this latest change to Google's Guidelines prohibiting link exchanges explicitly is something all webmasters and SEOs should pay attention to. Google is very good at analyzing connections (ie. links) between domains, so don't think 3-way link schemes will insulate you from the conequences of any crackdown. Its not very hard for them to notice that many of the sites that link to Site A are receiving links from Site B. Where simple link exchanges might be tolerated if done on a limited basis (as seems to be the case now), heavy 3-way linking might well be enough for Google to impose a penalty on all of the sites involved in the future. Its not uncommon for Google to roll out major changes just before the Holidays. This refining of their guidelines is closely related to their recent pronouncements about buying links. I wouldn't be surprised if the next real algorithm change targets both of these factors.

When read with the initial paragraph (right above the list mentioning reciprocal linking), it becomes pretty clear that we are NOT inherently against reciprocal links.

Note in particular this sentence: â€œHowever, some webmasters engage in link exchange schemes and build partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites.â€

We Googlers are nonetheless chatting about ways we can better clarify our stance on this subject.

Click to expand...

I think that is, at least in part, a direct hint at not using automated link exchange systems. It may be a swipe at some software that checks and removes links based on the existence of the linkback, without meritorious review. A lack of links without exchange on your pages would perhaps flag your site.

The mantra "Build pages for the users" also comes to mind... throw in some links that are just plain old useful.

I think this is taken out of context. Google is referring to link schemes not just the average webmaster asking another related niche site to exchange links. They want to ban sites who do nothing but build links by link exchanging with any site that will list their site.

Google used pretty vague wording to leave room for future tweaking of their algorithm, but I really don't think they are talking about "banning" websites who exchanged links. That would be 99% of the websites out there. They might de-value the links or do something if a site has limited contents, 2 one-way links but 5000 reciprocal links. Otherwise I wouldn't worry about it.

With Google getting tougher and tougher on link manipulation, why don't they look back and evaluate their core algorithm which give an enormous amount of weight to links. They set the wild fire themselves, but now are trying to put it off with a garden hose.